binman

Good post Sambo ...and to make us all fell a little better. There was some DL posters who (not unreasonably) thought we it might be worth taking a punt on Gartlett. Roos's solid citizen rule ruled that possibility out though. The Hawks decided to take the punt. At this stage the punt hasn't worked out: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-recruit-dayle-garlett-no-closer-to-returning-to-playing-field-as-club-and-management-discuss-progress/story-fndv8os9-1226858444578

Yep, good points well made. Hard to disagree. He's had a great preseason by all accounts. So it will be fascinating to see if roos picks him. Given his comments about not picking players before they're ready one assumes if he is picked roos thinks he's up to it

Being put of the contest too easily does not mean he is out of his depth. I really dislike such statements (out of his depth etc) as they are made by some (not you) as statements of fact. Did he star last year? No. Did he have injuries and an interrupted preseason. Yes. Did he play under a coach who has universally panned? Yes (as opposed to wines who has a coach who has been lauded for his capacity to develop young players and get them to play for him). The game he played down at the cattery last year showed he is not out of his depth at afl level.

To that i'd add the Geelong NAB game. He was clipped hard and late going for a mark. A soft player might have avoided risks for the rest of the game, particularly given it was basically a practice match. However the Toump kept going after the ball and later in the game he showed real courage going back with the ball attempting to mark. Let's not make the mistake of labeling a player soft as Hannibal has so blithely done (which is quite remarkable given his 'haven't you guys got Foxtel' call - i mean Hannibal claim he wasn't soft as juniour but suddenly has become one as a senior player?). He's not soft and he's not out of his depth at AFL level. He will prove that this year (indeed has begun proving it already) It shows no football nous to say we made a mistake picking the Toump not Wines. Way too easy a call, based it would seem on an amazing start to his career (good on him for this) and a slow start for the Toump.

Surely not king. I would have thought they'd let him ease into things at Casey. If they don't give jetta a crack now they never will.

I saw that. Didn't sound great. As you say said maybe 2-3 but when pressed again said 3-4

Whilst the shoulders were obviously the main reason he slipped to 3 I think at least part of the reason Hodge and Bell went above him was that they were both super solid citiznes with strong leadership skills.

Yeah i guess, though you can't put that all down to Hodge obviously and obviously Judd would have brought a lot to the team (though i suspect not the same level of leadership). Interesting debate though, made all the more interesting by the fact that Judd went 3 and Luke Ball went 2.

I tend to agree, though it is hard to gauge how much Hodges influence as a leader has positively impacted on the Hawks culture.

I'll give this to you Hannibal. You're consistent. Why the need to be rude? I wasn't having a shot at you nor was i rude, yet you cannot resist being rude. For what its worth i rate people who show a semblance of grace and capacity to engage in intelligent argument over narcissists who rely on simplistic, dismissive insults to make their points.

You may well prove to be correct but was it not you that posted a while back that such early predictions are folly and in fact you cannot compare players until their respective careers are nearing their end, as is well demonstrated in the Judd/Hodge example. Out of interest do you think the Hawks erred by taking Hodge not Judd?

Who cares now? The Toump is a demon and wines plays for an opposition club. For whats's worth my two bobs worth is that Wines looks a gun and the jury is out on on the Toump. A very similar scenario will have played out for Hawks fans when they took Hodge not Judd. For years Judd was the clear standout - indeed until he was in his mid twenties he was probably the best player in the league. Two premierships and a norm smith later I doubt too many Hawks fans would now say they made the wrong call.

We've all just had a pretty big stress reaction

2 weeks would be round one.

If this article is correct Hogan was/is having scans today. If he hasn't had scans yet how on earth could DB or anyone else for that matter jump to the conclusion that he has fractures. Please.

No offence - but what the .......? You could be the Hun chief footy writer with that sort of logic.

. I can see the similarities to in go but to me he reminds me more of the duke of earl.awkward but effective and similar build

Yes penalties were for governance breaches and bringing the game into disrepute (which would be hard to argue against). However they do set an interesting benchmark in terms of severity of penalties. One assumes club penalties for systematic doping would be considerably harsher.

I agree. Indeed it seems the ban on players talking about anything other than the process has been lifted

and that if we have the ball they don't

My condition - Pollyanna Syndrome - is currently under control (just) and i cannot allow that genie to get out of the football. It was so bad last year that i confidently told mates we'd make the 8 and actually backed us to do so. It took precisely 1 game to realize i had a problem (and one more to ram home the point). So i refuse to countenance winning.

Good get. The commentary was appalling and that was just one example but it stood out to me. In addition to your point Blease was running across the ground and to get the ball to Cross would have had to kick with his left foot or tried a check kick - and as you say into the wind. It was the percentage play to give and go with Watts but still the commentators bagged (despite the obvious fact it resulted in a goal). Another dumb call was one of them saying that with the Roos game players who kick accurately and made good decisions would get in the team. Duh - and geez we have a surfeit of such players who just crack it for a game.

Yep - and the docs just say whether a player is uninjured and therefore ok to be selected, should that be the call. It is the role of the conditioning team to determine if he is actually fit enough to play. Viney has had an interrupted pre season and if he doesn't play most of the game against the Hawks and back it up with a couple of weeks of solid training i doubt he'll play round 1. If he is not fully match fit he's likely to play limited minutes for Casey - to which many would say that if he's fit to play for Casey then he's good to go for the AFL. That might be true of say a big fella like Dawes but not for a mid, particularly a young, developing one.

Good post WJ. I'd also add that Essendon and its media allies have also looked to manipulate the narrative in such a way that the focus is on the legality or otherwise of the drugs used. Indeed Whateley has been adamant on this point since the beginning and i heard him on Offsiders repeat the assertion that this is really the only issue. The narrative is if ASADA do not charge any players then EFC are vindicated. This infuriates me. It is the very definition of a furphy. For a start it is possible that EFC did in fact used banned drugs but ASADA don't have sufficient proof (or desire?) to lay charges. This scenario is no vindication in my eyes. Bu in any case, for me to an extent the charges are secondary. The real issue is the failure of the club to protect their players from harm. For god's sake they can not even equivocally say what drugs the players received and what is completely missed by Yobbo and the EFC apologists in discussion about AOD and the potential wrong advice from ASADA is that it is a drug that has not been properly tested and was not being used for its intended purpose. And this is just a couple of examples of how they let down their players. Hundreds of off site injections, a lack of proper proper medical oversight, ignoring their own doctors warning and in in the words of their own expert brought in to review what happened - 'a pharmacological experimental environment'. Finnis made this very point ie the issue of the legality of the drugs is secondary to the health and welfare of the players. EFC and journos like Yobbo and Whateley refuse to address this. And like you WJ i have lost a lot of respect for Whateley.

Even if she chose to not take the free kick her editor would not have allowed her to miss the opportunity to have a shot at their only real competitor (particularly given the criticism she and the Age have copped from the sanctimonious double act of Warner and Yobbo).